The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Your information is incorrect. It is one of the differences between us and the RCs but was not in itself a cause of the Great Schism. We do believe that it is wrong to use unleavened bread but Rome had been doing it prior to the Schism whilst remaining in communion with us. The practice was criticised but it was not used as a reason for severing communion.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

This is interesting...Why was it criticised? What exactly is the reason(s) for claiming that it is a doubtful practise?

As an RC, I have not really heard exactly why this point was in dispute. According to RC sacramental theology, it does not affect the validity of the sacrament at all.

As a wild guess... Was it considered wrong by the Easterners because the bread people normally ate at the time of Christ was leavened and that it was this bread He used himself? If so, it would be an argument which I would personally be very sympathetic to, at least initially, even if it turns out to be wrong, since I am always more sympathetic to the traditional side in any dispute anyway

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Quote

Your information is incorrect. It is one of the differences between us and the RCs but was not in itself a cause of the Great Schism.

I obtained this information from Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism...Prominent among these were the issues of "filioque", whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist[3] the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[4]

Quote

We do believe that it is wrong to use unleavened bread

So what is the reason that it is an error to use unleavened bread?

I heard that the Catholic position why they believe that using unleavened bread is correct is that [The passover week is for eating unleavened bread, Exodus 12:18-20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism...Prominent among these were the issues of "filioque", whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist[3] the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[4]

I was about to say 'don't trust Wikipedia' but then went and read the passage in question and it seems to me that you just misinterpreted it. It doesn't say it was a cause of the schism but that it was one of the things which east and west had disputed prior to the schism, which is closer to what I wrote in my reply.

Quote

So what is the reason that it is an error to use unleavened bread?

I heard that the Catholic position why they believe that using unleavened bread is correct is that [The passover week is for eating unleavened bread, Exodus 12:18-20]

I doubt I know all the reasoning behind it, though I could probably look it up, but we certainly don't believe that the Last Supper took place during Passover but rather before and I'm pretty certain that the Greek used specifies leavened not unleavened bread (artos as opposed to azymes).

James

« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 07:26:14 AM by jmbejdl »

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

I hope you have read and found the answers to be informative (I certainly did). I think, however, that the larger question is whether such a difference is indicative of larger issues. I think that the reason why the EO made such a big deal about this is that they were (and still are) opposed to the RC way of forging ahead without regard to the rest of the Church--that is, as if only the Roman Catholic Church is the Church. I think it was quite natural for the RC to then proclaim the unorthodox (and heretical) dogma of Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, for example. So, this is issue is tied in with many others, just as it was in the 11th Century.

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

The schism is about good ole Power. Who gets to wield it and who does not. Leavened or unleavened bread and all the rest is just superfluous trappings.

Quote

I think it was quite natural for the RC to then proclaim the unorthodox (and heretical) dogma of Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, for example. So, this is issue is tied in with many others, just as it was in the 11th Century.

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

If one looks at the actual 11th and 12th century sources, it is the main issue.

The Byzantines saw unleavened bread (άζυμα) as a Judaizing practice, a denial of the new life in Christ, and also as an Apollinarian denial that Christ had a human soul, since the bread had no "soul" in it. See the works of Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, Niketas Stethatos, or even the 13th century records of the union negotiations at Nymphaeum. The main issue was Christological for the Byzantines: only those who deny some aspect of the Incarnation, and Christ's presence in the bread, would use a flat, lifeless, Jewish-inspired, Old Law-style bread for Holy Communion. There were also linguistic and historical arguments, e.g. the Scripture talks of Christ using άρτος (leavened bread), not άζυμα (unleavened).

The Latins/Germans, in turn, said the Byzantines were Judaizers for not shaving their beards, as if they were Nazarenes.

In short, there were a lot of polemics having to do with liturgical customs. Both sides believed they had the original tradition and explained the significance of those traditions with various theological arguments. Very, very few of the polemical works discussed the filioque: that had more or less reached a detente after the healing of the Photian schism, although it could obviously pop up as another example in the long list of contested practices.

Modern scholars have shown that both leavened and unleavened bread were used in the early centuries, but that leavened became the norm for several centuries, to be replaced in the West no later than the time of Bede. Armenians, however, started to use unleavened a bit earlier. It may actually be the Byzantine dislike for Armenians that played a role in their dislike of the unleavened bread they saw in the Latin rite churches in Constantinople in the 11th century. Also, they didn't like that the new German-backed Pope was making the Byzantine Rite churches in Italy use it.

So, in summary, leavened bread had been the most common thing for some time, but it became common in the West to use unleavened bread for centuries leading up to the 11th century, and, as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all.

Basically, no one knew about how diverse Christian liturgical practices had been, and assumed their way was the only way ever. As for why this became such a big issue: Much easier to get excited about something tangible like this. Just look at people's visceral (and theological) responses to those who have used or proposed using something like Doritos and Pepsi for communion today; or, less extreme, the polemics one can find over beards and clerical attire.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 02:39:16 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

If one looks at the actual 11th and 12th century sources, it is the main issue.

The Byzantines saw unleavened bread (άζυμα) as a Judaizing practice, a denial of the new life in Christ, and also as an Apollinarian denial that Christ had a human soul, since the bread had no "soul" in it. See the works of Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, Niketas Stethatos, or even the 13th century records of the union negotiations at Nymphaeum. The main issue was Christological for the Byzantines: only those who deny some aspect of the Incarnation, and Christ's presence in the bread, would use a flat, lifeless, Jewish-inspired, Old Law-style bread for Holy Communion. There were also linguistic and historical arguments, e.g. the Scripture talks of Christ using άρτος (leavened bread), not άζυμα (unleavened).

The Latins/Germans, in turn, said the Byzantines were Judaizers for not shaving their beards, as if they were Nazarenes.

In short, there were a lot of polemics having to do with liturgical customs. Both sides believed they had the original tradition and explained the significance of those traditions with various theological arguments. Very, very few of the polemical works discussed the filioque: that had more or less reached a detente after the healing of the Photian schism, although it could obviously pop up as another example in the long list of contested practices.

Modern scholars have shown that both leavened and unleavened bread were used in the early centuries, but that leavened became the norm for several centuries, to be replaced in the West no later than the time of Bede. Armenians, however, started to use unleavened a bit earlier. It may actually be the Byzantine dislike for Armenians that played a role in their dislike of the unleavened bread they saw in the Latin rite churches in Constantinople in the 11th century. Also, they didn't like that the new German-backed Pope was making the Byzantine Rite churches in Italy use it.

So, in summary, leavened bread had been the most common thing for some time, but it became common in the West to use unleavened bread for centuries leading up to the 11th century, and, as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all.

Basically, no one knew about how diverse Christian liturgical practices had been, and assumed their way was the only way ever. As for why this became such a big issue: Much easier to get excited about something tangible like this. Just look at people's visceral (and theological) responses to those who have used or proposed using something like Doritos and Pepsi for communion today; or, less extreme, the polemics one can find over beards and clerical attire.

Great post. Thanks, you always have good stuff. Informative as it is disheartening. Seems as if they go hand in hand.

as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all

What is the source for this? I'd love to read it.

Here is something else to consider: The leavened bread represents the Risen Christ, the living Christ in that the warmth of the hot water that is added to the wine (red, never white) reminds us that God in Christ is alive and our Salvation.

as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all

What is the source for this? I'd love to read it.

Here is something else to consider: The leavened bread represents the Risen Christ, the living Christ in that the warmth of the hot water that is added to the wine (red, never white) reminds us that God in Christ is alive and our Salvation.

Oh yes, definitely! As we have said, the bread is alive, literally! As the leaven is actually living organism.

But I'd still like to see Cardinal Humbert's statement supporting Communion in the Hand. I'd like to give some trads a heart attack

Standard just for the Armenians. It has been an issue in the past for the other OO, but not now. It has not really been an issue for the EO, not like it has been with the Latins.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

Even if we accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, this isn't a convincing reason. The NT clearly distinguishes between leavened bread (ἄρτος) and unleavened bread (ἄζυμος), and all NT accounts of the Last Supper specify that Christ used ἄρτος, even if they disagree on details such as whether or not the Last Supper was actually the Passover meal.

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.

The last supper was in Passover week and according to the Law it says :

Quote

Lord:

Ex 13:3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.13: 7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters. 8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 02:28:26 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. - John 19:31

Quote

So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. - John 19:42

The Day of Preparation is when the Leavened bread, or Artos, is discarded and was the day of the Crucifixion, after the Last Supper already occured.

Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. - John 19:31

Quote

So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. - John 19:42

The Day of Preparation is when the Leavened bread, or Artos, is discarded and was the day of the Crucifixion, after the Last Supper already occured.

Wrong The preparation was a reference to the Sabbath as Mathew , Mark and Luke all point out and as John meant ,since gospels don't contradict each other. The preparation day of the Sabbath is a few days into the Passover week . We read :

Quote

order to maintain that Christ ate the Last Supper on the first day of unleavened bread, a response must be formulated to the passage in John 19:14-18, which seems to indicate that Christ was crucified on the “Preparation of the Passover.” First, it must be noted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke each state that Christ was crucified on the “day of preparation.” Matthew, in speaking of the day after Jesus’ crucifixion, affirmed: “Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again’ ” Matthew 27:62-63). Mark’s account, in dealing with the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, observed: “And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus” (15:42-43). Not only did Mark specify the day of Jesus’ crucifixion as “the Preparation,” but he also defined that day for his readers as “the day before the Sabbath.” Finally, Luke related virtually the same facts in 23:50-54:

And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), a man of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain. And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 02:50:19 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

Even if we accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, this isn't a convincing reason. The NT clearly distinguishes between leavened bread (ἄρτος) and unleavened bread (ἄζυμος), and all NT accounts of the Last Supper specify that Christ used ἄρτος, even if they disagree on details such as whether or not the Last Supper was actually the Passover meal.

Quote

The original language provides no assistance in ascertaining whether the bread was leavened or not. The Greek word used to identify the bread distributed by Christ at the Last Supper is artos (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), which is the general word for any kind of bread (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 110). The use of this word does not exclude the possibility that it was unleavened bread, since the Septuagint translators used the word artos to refer to unleavened bread (Leviticus 8:2,26). At the same time, use of the term does not demand that it was unleavened bread. In fact, another Greek word, azumos, could have been used to mean strictly unleavened bread (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 19). Therefore, from the word used to describe the bread eaten by Jesus at the Last Supper, we can deduce only that it could have been either leavened or unleavened. As noted earlier, the only way to prove from the Bible that the bread was unleavened is to verify that Jesus ate the Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan—the actual Passover.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.

Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread

Quote

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:01:32 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.

The last supper was in Passover week and according to the Law it says :

Quote

Lord:

Ex 13:3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.13: 7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters. 8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.

Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread

Quote

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).

According to the Bible (Let. 23:5) the first day of unleavened bread falls on the 15th of Nissan. According to the same source, the sacrifice occurs on the 14th Nissan. The only way the various verses make sense is if the Mystical Supper happened on the evening of the 14th Nisan, i.e. after sunset between the 13th and 14th, when the Jews get rid of the leaven, Biyur Khametz, e.g.:

Quote

Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining leaven (Hebrew chametz, as in bedikat chametz) after nightfall on the evening before Passover. A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ – al biyur chametz, "on the removal of leaven"), and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to check that no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern-style[citation needed] families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the supervision of their parents.It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz. However, most contemporary Jewish-Orthodox authorities permit using a flashlight, while some strongly encourage it due to the danger coupled with using a candle. Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for naught (bracha l'vatala) if nothing is found. Thus, 10 morsels of bread smaller than the size of an olive are traditionally hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that some chametz will be found; today, it is common to exercise this by leaving pieces of dry cold breakfast cereal, Cheerios (which are made of oat flour) and shredded wheat being popular.On the morning of the 14th of Nisan, any leavened products that remain in the householder's possession, along with the 10 morsels of bread from the previous night's search, are burned (s'rayfat chametz). The head of the household repeats the declaration of biyur chametz, declaring any chametz that may not have been found to be null and void "as the dust of the earth". Should more chametz actually be found in the house during the Passover holiday, it must be burnt as soon as possible.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.

Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread

Quote

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).

According to the Bible (Let. 23:5) the first day of unleavened bread falls on the 15th of Nissan. According to the same source, the sacrifice occurs on the 14th Nissan. The only way the various verses make sense is if the Mystical Supper happened on the evening of the 14th Nisan, i.e. after sunset between the 13th and 14th, when the Jews get rid of the leaven, Biyur Khametz, e.g.:

Quote

Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining leaven (Hebrew chametz, as in bedikat chametz) after nightfall on the evening before Passover. A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ – al biyur chametz, "on the removal of leaven"), and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to check that no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern-style[citation needed] families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the supervision of their parents.It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz. However, most contemporary Jewish-Orthodox authorities permit using a flashlight, while some strongly encourage it due to the danger coupled with using a candle. Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for naught (bracha l'vatala) if nothing is found. Thus, 10 morsels of bread smaller than the size of an olive are traditionally hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that some chametz will be found; today, it is common to exercise this by leaving pieces of dry cold breakfast cereal, Cheerios (which are made of oat flour) and shredded wheat being popular.On the morning of the 14th of Nisan, any leavened products that remain in the householder's possession, along with the 10 morsels of bread from the previous night's search, are burned (s'rayfat chametz). The head of the household repeats the declaration of biyur chametz, declaring any chametz that may not have been found to be null and void "as the dust of the earth". Should more chametz actually be found in the house during the Passover holiday, it must be burnt as soon as possible.

The law prohibiting leavened bread commences on the 14th.. the bible says

" the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" exodus 12:18-20

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

Proving further that leaven was eaten: the Passover meal is eaten AFTER the passover lamb was sacrificed. The way you are misreading scripture, it would be Maundy Friday, as they would be eating it Friday evening.

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

Even more proof you are wrong.

Quote

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. Leviticus (23:5)

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

You should stop hanging around the Jesus seminar.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

Read my first post. I said both traditions are correct. In that they are both valid. They are just based on different theology

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:32:20 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.

Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread

Quote

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).

According to the Bible (Let. 23:5) the first day of unleavened bread falls on the 15th of Nissan. According to the same source, the sacrifice occurs on the 14th Nissan. The only way the various verses make sense is if the Mystical Supper happened on the evening of the 14th Nisan, i.e. after sunset between the 13th and 14th, when the Jews get rid of the leaven, Biyur Khametz, e.g.:

Quote

Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining leaven (Hebrew chametz, as in bedikat chametz) after nightfall on the evening before Passover. A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ – al biyur chametz, "on the removal of leaven"), and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to check that no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern-style[citation needed] families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the supervision of their parents.It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz. However, most contemporary Jewish-Orthodox authorities permit using a flashlight, while some strongly encourage it due to the danger coupled with using a candle. Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for naught (bracha l'vatala) if nothing is found. Thus, 10 morsels of bread smaller than the size of an olive are traditionally hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that some chametz will be found; today, it is common to exercise this by leaving pieces of dry cold breakfast cereal, Cheerios (which are made of oat flour) and shredded wheat being popular.On the morning of the 14th of Nisan, any leavened products that remain in the householder's possession, along with the 10 morsels of bread from the previous night's search, are burned (s'rayfat chametz). The head of the household repeats the declaration of biyur chametz, declaring any chametz that may not have been found to be null and void "as the dust of the earth". Should more chametz actually be found in the house during the Passover holiday, it must be burnt as soon as possible.

The law prohibiting leavened bread commences on the 14th.. the bible says

" the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" exodus 12:18-20

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

Read my first post. I said both traditions are correct. I'm that they are both valid. They are just based on different theology

Yes, Orthodox and heretical.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

Proving further that leaven was eaten: the Passover meal is eaten AFTER the passover lamb was sacrificed. The way you are misreading scripture, it would be Maundy Friday, as they would be eating it Friday evening.

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

Even more proof you are wrong.

Quote

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. Leviticus (23:5)

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

Read my first post. I said both traditions are correct. I'm that they are both valid. They are just based on different theology

Yes, Orthodox and heretical.

Well then Jesus , the 12 disciples and Moses are all heretics according to you

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:31:19 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

Proving further that leaven was eaten: the Passover meal is eaten AFTER the passover lamb was sacrificed. The way you are misreading scripture, it would be Maundy Friday, as they would be eating it Friday evening.

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

Even more proof you are wrong.

Quote

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. Leviticus (23:5)

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

You should stop hanging around the Jesus seminar.

Exodus 12:18-20Luke 22:7-15

Yes, I've seen them.

No, your interpretation is still incorrect.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

Read my first post. I said both traditions are correct. I'm that they are both valid. They are just based on different theology

Yes, Orthodox and heretical.

Well then Jesus , the 12 disciples and Moses are all heretics according to you

No, just what you try to pass off in their name.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

the reason for using unleavened bread in the west is not merely imitation of Christ's use (though that certainly plays a part), but primarily because unleavened bread is the bread of purity, and it represents Christ's sinlessness and our purification in Grace by the Eucharist.

In explaining this, Latin theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas uses this in the Summa Theologica to explain the practice, for instance) have often cited 1 Corinthians 5:

Quote

[6] Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

[7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [9]

That's the theology behind it

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

the reason for using unleavened bread in the west is not merely imitation of Christ's use (though that certainly plays a part), but primarily because unleavened bread is the bread of purity, and it represents Christ's sinlessness and our purification in Grace by the Eucharist.

In explaining this, Latin theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas uses this in the Summa Theologica to explain the practice, for instance) have often cited 1 Corinthians 5:

Quote

[6] Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

[7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [9]

Whether it was during or before the Passover, the Jews have a tradition to remove all leavened in their house seven (7) days, before the passover, to ensure that no leaven is found. This is a part of their preparation to the passover. so Its definitely unleavened bread.

No. They remove it the evening before Passover, Erev Pesach. Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining chametz ("bedikat chametz") after nightfall on the evening before Passover (which is also the evening that precedes the Fast of the Firstborn). A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ - al biyur chametz, "on the removal of chametz") and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to ensure no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the careful supervision of their parents.

It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz.

Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for nought ("bracha l'vatala") if nothing is found. Thus, ten pieces of bread smaller than the size of an olive are hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that there is chametz to be found.

It is not without importance that those who celebrated Pascha on the same date in Asia did so on the 14th Nisan, i.e. Erev Pesach. Hence Quartodecimanians.

Quote

The use of unleavened bread by the latins, is also considered as a legitimate liturgical difference even by some Eastern Orthodox bishop and should not be an issue anymore.

Because the Vatican says so?

Quote

The use of Leavened and Unleavened bread by the Oriental Orthodox is never a cause of division as it was never been a cause of division by the early church until this was explicitly done by the EO as the only legitimate form of bread.

No, it became an issue when the Vatican tried to force it on the Orthodox in Southern Italy.

Quote

whether it was leavened or unleavened, it should not be a cause of division

While reading the list of Orthodox Church Synods and Councils I read that the Synod of Jerusalem declared that Jesus didn't use unleavened bread at the last supper...what is the reason for this? Wasn't the Last Supper during passover?

I'm astonished that people still ask this question. Look at the time factor for the events which took place, and you will see that the Last Supper was not the Passover Meal:1) Jesus and the disciples eat the Last Supper, 2) Jesus and the disciples crossed the Kidron Valley (John 18:1)3) Jesus underwent the Agony in the Garden4) Jesus was Arrested5) Jesus was brought before Ciaphas6) Jesus was taken from Ciaphas and brought before Pilate.But St. John tells us that when Jesus was brought to Pilate the next morning (event No.6), the Jews who brought Him to Pilate would not enter the Praetorium, because doing so would render them unclean for the Passover:"Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, so that they might eat the Passover." (John18:28)St. John the Beloved Disciple (who witnessed the events himself first hand) clearly says that the events listed 1-6 took place before the Passover, so leavened bread was still used.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 04:22:16 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.

Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

Proving further that leaven was eaten: the Passover meal is eaten AFTER the passover lamb was sacrificed. The way you are misreading scripture, it would be Maundy Friday, as they would be eating it Friday evening.

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

Even more proof you are wrong.

Quote

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. Leviticus (23:5)

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.

You should stop hanging around the Jesus seminar.

Exodus 12:18-20Luke 22:7-15

Yes, I've seen them.

No, your interpretation is still incorrect.

They're explicit and your denial of what they say is a shame :

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” 13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." 22:7-15

" In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that [a]person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land. 20 You shall not eat anything leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread." Exodus 12:18-20

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” 13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." 22:7-15

" In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that [a]person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land. 20 You shall not eat anything leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread." Exodus 12:18-20

you sure you're not Hindu? Or does the CCC have a section on mantras that I missed?

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 04:37:17 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

the reason for using unleavened bread in the west is not merely imitation of Christ's use (though that certainly plays a part), but primarily because unleavened bread is the bread of purity, and it represents Christ's sinlessness and our purification in Grace by the Eucharist.

In explaining this, Latin theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas uses this in the Summa Theologica to explain the practice, for instance) have often cited 1 Corinthians 5:

Quote

[6] Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

[7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [9]

But just as the aforesaid misguided persons sin against the unity of the mystical Body by denying the plenary power of the Roman Pontiff, so they sin against the purity of the sacrament of the Body of Christ, saying that the Body of Christ cannot be consecrated from unleavened bread. This, too, is disproved from texts of the Greek Doctors.

For Chrysostom commenting on the Gospel pericope, On the first day of the unleavened bread, says: “ first day he says is Thursday, on which observers of the Law began to celebrate the Passover, that is, to eat unleavened brewad, absolutely free of yeast. The Lord, therefore, sends his disciples on Thursday, which the Evangelist calls the first day of the unleavened bread, on which in the evening the Savior ate the Passover; in this deed, as in all he did from the beginning of his circumcision to the final day of his passover, he clearly showed that he was not opposed to divine laws.” Lib. 106, 1-13, from Theophylact Super Matth. XXVI: 17 (PG 123, 440 note a, and 441 A).

Hence, the first day of the unleavened bread is called by the three Evangelists, Matthew 26: 17; Mark 14:12; and Luke 22:7, the fourteenth day of the month, because toward evening the unleavened bread was eaten and then the Passover, that is, the paschal lamb was sacrificed. And, according to John 13: 1, this was before the feast of the Passover, that is, before the fifteenth day of the month, because this was the most solemn day on which the Jews wished to eat the Passover, that is, the unleavened paschal bread as well as the paschal lamb. , there being no disagreement among the Evangelists, it is plain that Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread at the supper.

Clearly, also, this is more fitting for the purity of the mystical Body, that is, the Church, typified in this sacrament. Hence, Gregory Nazianzen says in his sermon on the feast of the Passover of the Lord: “Let us celebrate a feast to the Lord with jubilation, not in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and purity (1 Cor. 5:Cool.” Lib. 105, 9-12; cf. Gregory Naz. Oratio I n. 3 (PG 35, 397 A).

Now again just so there is not confusion both leavened and unleavened are valid. They are just based on different theologies

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

Even if we accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, this isn't a convincing reason. The NT clearly distinguishes between leavened bread (ἄρτος) and unleavened bread (ἄζυμος), and all NT accounts of the Last Supper specify that Christ used ἄρτος, even if they disagree on details such as whether or not the Last Supper was actually the Passover meal.

Quote

The original language provides no assistance in ascertaining whether the bread was leavened or not. The Greek word used to identify the bread distributed by Christ at the Last Supper is artos (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), which is the general word for any kind of bread (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 110). The use of this word does not exclude the possibility that it was unleavened bread, since the Septuagint translators used the word artos to refer to unleavened bread (Leviticus 8:2,26). At the same time, use of the term does not demand that it was unleavened bread. In fact, another Greek word, azumos, could have been used to mean strictly unleavened bread (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 19). Therefore, from the word used to describe the bread eaten by Jesus at the Last Supper, we can deduce only that it could have been either leavened or unleavened. As noted earlier, the only way to prove from the Bible that the bread was unleavened is to verify that Jesus ate the Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan—the actual Passover.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

So ἄρτος is used in Lev 8 in the LXX, but so is ἄζυμος, clarifying any "ambiguity" of the former.

Again, I accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, and regularly commune in Armenian churches where this is the custom. But I think if you want to make a strong case for unleavened bread as "what Jesus used", it's not going to work based on Scripture. In a previous post, someone compared the RC apologetics on this matter to the RC apologetics on clerical celibacy, and I think there's something to that. Despite the RC insistence that these are matters of discipline and not doctrine, much ink is spilled and effort expended in "proving" these things as if they are doctrine.

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” 13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." 22:7-15

" In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that [a]person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land. 20 You shall not eat anything leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread." Exodus 12:18-20

you sure you're not Hindu? Or does the CCC have a section on mantras that I missed?

LOL God be with you Isa. I'm done with you LOL

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” 13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." 22:7-15

" In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that [a]person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land. 20 You shall not eat anything leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread." Exodus 12:18-20

Do you really think the Fathers of East and West, in reading these passages in their original languages, did not already think of the possibility that it really is as explicit as you say, and yet still end up concluding that it's not?

Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.

Even if we accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, this isn't a convincing reason. The NT clearly distinguishes between leavened bread (ἄρτος) and unleavened bread (ἄζυμος), and all NT accounts of the Last Supper specify that Christ used ἄρτος, even if they disagree on details such as whether or not the Last Supper was actually the Passover meal.

Quote

The original language provides no assistance in ascertaining whether the bread was leavened or not. The Greek word used to identify the bread distributed by Christ at the Last Supper is artos (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), which is the general word for any kind of bread (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 110). The use of this word does not exclude the possibility that it was unleavened bread, since the Septuagint translators used the word artos to refer to unleavened bread (Leviticus 8:2,26). At the same time, use of the term does not demand that it was unleavened bread. In fact, another Greek word, azumos, could have been used to mean strictly unleavened bread (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 19). Therefore, from the word used to describe the bread eaten by Jesus at the Last Supper, we can deduce only that it could have been either leavened or unleavened. As noted earlier, the only way to prove from the Bible that the bread was unleavened is to verify that Jesus ate the Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan—the actual Passover.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

So ἄρτος is used in Lev 8 in the LXX, but so is ἄζυμος, clarifying any "ambiguity" of the former.

Again, I accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, and regularly commune in Armenian churches where this is the custom. But I think if you want to make a strong case for unleavened bread as "what Jesus used", it's not going to work based on Scripture. In a previous post, someone compared the RC apologetics on this matter to the RC apologetics on clerical celibacy, and I think there's something to that. Despite the RC insistence that these are matters of discipline and not doctrine, much ink is spilled and effort expended in "proving" these things as if they are doctrine.

The Greek used in ancient times ἄρτους simply meant "bread". Here's a side-by-side of the English and the Greek of the Septuagint, Numbers 6:15

Regarding Ex. 25.30, the passage is discussing the Bread of the Presence. Do we know for certain that this was unleavened bread? If so, then maybe this is a point in your favour. The Wikipedia and Jewish Encyclopedia articles argue that it was more likely unleavened, but not impossible that it was leavened: the preparation of the bread was a secret of the priests. Here is your ambiguity, but not in any of the other passages you cited.

Regarding Ex. 25.30, the passage is discussing the Bread of the Presence. Do we know for certain that this was unleavened bread? If so, then maybe this is a point in your favour. The Wikipedia and Jewish Encyclopedia articles argue that it was more likely unleavened, but not impossible that it was leavened: the preparation of the bread was a secret of the priests. Here is your ambiguity, but not in any of the other passages you cited.

Regarding Exodus 25:30 ... Again, in ancient Koine Greek artos doesn't mean "leavened bread", it just means "bread". In the Old Testament the "showbread" of the Temple is referred to as "artos", despite being unleavened.

I'll provide evidence for the showbread being unleavened if you still doubt... Just say so

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Regarding Ex. 25.30, the passage is discussing the Bread of the Presence. Do we know for certain that this was unleavened bread? If so, then maybe this is a point in your favour. The Wikipedia and Jewish Encyclopedia articles argue that it was more likely unleavened, but not impossible that it was leavened: the preparation of the bread was a secret of the priests. Here is your ambiguity, but not in any of the other passages you cited.

Regarding Exodus 25:30 ... Again, in ancient Koine Greek artos doesn't mean "leavened bread", it just means "bread". In the Old Testament the "showbread" of the Temple is referred to as "artos", despite being unleavened.

I'll provide evidence for the showbread being unleavened if you still doubt... Just say so

"Mention is made of the showbread in the story of David's adventure at Nob. Ahimelek, the priest, at David's request, gave him the "holy" bread, that is, the stale loaves that had been taken away and replaced by "hot" ones (I Sam. xxi. 4-6; comp. Matt. xii. 4; Luke vi. 4). In Solomon's Temple provision was made for the proper exhibition of the loaves (I Kings vii. 48; comp. II Chron. iv. 19, xiii. 11). not explicitly stated to be so, these cakes were most probably unleavened. It is true they were not offered upon the altar, from which leaven was scrupulously excluded (Lev. ii. 11); but, as most holy, they were carried into and exposed in the inner sanctuary, and therefore the supposition that the use of leaven in them was prohibited carries a high degree of probability" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13611-showbread

Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, in his Antiquities of the Jews Volume 3 10:7 states :

Quote

However, out of the common charges, baked bread [was set on the table of shew-bread], without leaven, of twenty-four tenth deals of flour, for so much is spent upon this bread; two heaps of these were baked, they were baked the day before the sabbath, but were brought into the holy place on the morning of the sabbath, and set upon the holy table, six on a heap, one loaf still standing over against another; where two golden cups full of frankincense were also set upon them, and there they remained till another sabbath, and then other loaves were brought in their stead, while the loaves were given to the priests for their food, and the frankincense was burnt in that sacred fire wherein all their offerings were burnt also; and so other frankincense was set upon the loaves instead of what was there before. The [high priest also, of his own charges, offered a sacrifice, and that twice every day. It was made of flour mingled with oil, and gently baked by the fire; the quantity was one tenth deal of flour; he brought the half of it to the fire in the morning, and the other half at night. The account of these sacrifices I shall give more accurately hereafter; but I think I have premised what for the present may be sufficient concerning them. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant3.html

And the talmudic halakhah prescribes that these loaves were to be of un-leavened bread (Men. 5a; cf. Jos., Ant., 3:255)

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 06:50:54 PM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

the reason for using unleavened bread in the west is not merely imitation of Christ's use (though that certainly plays a part), but primarily because unleavened bread is the bread of purity, and it represents Christ's sinlessness and our purification in Grace by the Eucharist.

In explaining this, Latin theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas uses this in the Summa Theologica to explain the practice, for instance) have often cited 1 Corinthians 5:

Quote

[6] Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

[7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. [8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [9]

But just as the aforesaid misguided persons sin against the unity of the mystical Body by denying the plenary power of the Roman Pontiff, so they sin against the purity of the sacrament of the Body of Christ, saying that the Body of Christ cannot be consecrated from unleavened bread. This, too, is disproved from texts of the Greek Doctors.

For Chrysostom commenting on the Gospel pericope, On the first day of the unleavened bread, says: “ first day he says is Thursday, on which observers of the Law began to celebrate the Passover, that is, to eat unleavened brewad, absolutely free of yeast. The Lord, therefore, sends his disciples on Thursday, which the Evangelist calls the first day of the unleavened bread, on which in the evening the Savior ate the Passover; in this deed, as in all he did from the beginning of his circumcision to the final day of his passover, he clearly showed that he was not opposed to divine laws.” Lib. 106, 1-13, from Theophylact Super Matth. XXVI: 17 (PG 123, 440 note a, and 441 A).

Hence, the first day of the unleavened bread is called by the three Evangelists, Matthew 26: 17; Mark 14:12; and Luke 22:7, the fourteenth day of the month, because toward evening the unleavened bread was eaten and then the Passover, that is, the paschal lamb was sacrificed. And, according to John 13: 1, this was before the feast of the Passover, that is, before the fifteenth day of the month, because this was the most solemn day on which the Jews wished to eat the Passover, that is, the unleavened paschal bread as well as the paschal lamb. , there being no disagreement among the Evangelists, it is plain that Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread at the supper.

Clearly, also, this is more fitting for the purity of the mystical Body, that is, the Church, typified in this sacrament. Hence, Gregory Nazianzen says in his sermon on the feast of the Passover of the Lord: “Let us celebrate a feast to the Lord with jubilation, not in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and purity (1 Cor. 5:Cool.” Lib. 105, 9-12; cf. Gregory Naz. Oratio I n. 3 (PG 35, 397 A).

Now again just so there is not confusion both leavened and unleavened are valid. They are just based on different theologies

As in so much, Aquinas here is mistaken. But then we would know that from the title of his work "Against the Errors [sic] of the Greeks [i.e. the Orthodox]."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Regarding Ex. 25.30, the passage is discussing the Bread of the Presence. Do we know for certain that this was unleavened bread? If so, then maybe this is a point in your favour. The Wikipedia and Jewish Encyclopedia articles argue that it was more likely unleavened, but not impossible that it was leavened: the preparation of the bread was a secret of the priests. Here is your ambiguity, but not in any of the other passages you cited.

Regarding Exodus 25:30 ... Again, in ancient Koine Greek artos doesn't mean "leavened bread", it just means "bread". In the Old Testament the "showbread" of the Temple is referred to as "artos", despite being unleavened.

I'll provide evidence for the showbread being unleavened if you still doubt... Just say so

"Mention is made of the showbread in the story of David's adventure at Nob. Ahimelek, the priest, at David's request, gave him the "holy" bread, that is, the stale loaves that had been taken away and replaced by "hot" ones (I Sam. xxi. 4-6; comp. Matt. xii. 4; Luke vi. 4). In Solomon's Temple provision was made for the proper exhibition of the loaves (I Kings vii. 48; comp. II Chron. iv. 19, xiii. 11). not explicitly stated to be so, these cakes were most probably unleavened. It is true they were not offered upon the altar, from which leaven was scrupulously excluded (Lev. ii. 11); but, as most holy, they were carried into and exposed in the inner sanctuary, and therefore the supposition that the use of leaven in them was prohibited carries a high degree of probability" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13611-showbread

Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, in his Antiquities of the Jews Volume 3 10:7 states :

Quote

However, out of the common charges, baked bread [was set on the table of shew-bread], without leaven, of twenty-four tenth deals of flour, for so much is spent upon this bread; two heaps of these were baked, they were baked the day before the sabbath, but were brought into the holy place on the morning of the sabbath, and set upon the holy table, six on a heap, one loaf still standing over against another; where two golden cups full of frankincense were also set upon them, and there they remained till another sabbath, and then other loaves were brought in their stead, while the loaves were given to the priests for their food, and the frankincense was burnt in that sacred fire wherein all their offerings were burnt also; and so other frankincense was set upon the loaves instead of what was there before. The [high priest also, of his own charges, offered a sacrifice, and that twice every day. It was made of flour mingled with oil, and gently baked by the fire; the quantity was one tenth deal of flour; he brought the half of it to the fire in the morning, and the other half at night. The account of these sacrifices I shall give more accurately hereafter; but I think I have premised what for the present may be sufficient concerning them. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant3.html

And the talmudic halakhah prescribes that these loaves were to be of un-leavened bread (Men. 5a; cf. Jos., Ant., 3:255)

So yet again you prefer to walk according to the Pharisees, Saduccees and Scribes and not on the Way of the Apostles.

Then what do you do with that "new lump?" And are you saying the Jews were celebrating their feast with old leaven?

Nothing. It causes me no problems. What should I do with it, or what problem should it cause my argument? A new lump is just that, new. As long as you don't go leavening it, or can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough, you can keep the lump new and unleavened. No problem at all.

Quote

Jesus I know, and Paul I know, and Ignatius I know, but who are you?

Wow! Don't be so harsh on yourself. I have not demonized you, why demonize yourself?

LOL. Good to see that it was taken in the same spirit that it was given.You have not explained (nor even attempted to explain)1) the presence of leaven in the discussion at all. Leaving aside the problem of context-St. Paul is talking about moral theology, not rubrics-leaven has no place in a discussion of Passover at all, except in being purged. As you point out:

Some protestants hold to a distinction between this meal and the Passover Seder proper, as obviously does the Orthodox. Some do not.I am one of those who does not. The text itself is clear, this was a passover meal. There is no need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions. The Bible clearly says it was a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion -- as you so thoroughly cited.Also, the internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder. Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder. That our misleading. No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further. If it looks like a seder, taste like a seder, & feels like a seder it's probably because IT WAS a seder.However, it is understandably confusing when people then read about the sacrificial offerings the following day. And questions crop up about whether there was a lamb or not (as the text it not explicit either way). I understand their need to rationalize an explanation therefore. However, what some forget (or perhaps do not realize) is that the Jewish day starts at sundown (so the day of Passover had indeed already come) and that there was a dual observance of the passover among the Jews. The majority keeping the feast on the twilight following the day of Passover, a minority keeping the feast on the twilight inaugurating the day of Passover. Obviously Jesus used this ambiguity of which twilight to feast on to both keep the feast and to then fulfill it later that day.

(btw, what is your authority for the boldface? And we Orthodox reckon the day the same way: the 7 hours of prayer for instance begins with Vespers/Evensong.)You claim that it was a Seder and therefore conclude that it was unleavened bread that Our Lord used. We'll return to the Seder tasting question below, but I am interested (since this is a thread on Protestant views): what is your argument to your fellow Protestants who hold to a distinction between this meal and a Passover Seder?As you continued with this line of thought of yours:

As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if).Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).

claiming that Christ (and hence the Christians) are celebrating according to the old law. If that were true, there should be no talk of no leaven, old or new:just the contrast between unleavened and leaven. I have seen Jewish allegory on Pasover, and the contrast has always been on the purged leaven and the leavened bread (which is forbidden), not between old and new leaven. Which contradicts your contention:

Besides, using the figure of bread, living bread does not denote leavened bread, for the bread broken and eaten is cooked. Leavened or unleavened, there is no more activity in the dough once it is cooked. My point? This is essentially bootstrapping to make leaven and living associate when it comes to Christ being our bread form heaven, much less the bread of Passover being His body.

If that were true, then the rabbis wouldn't obsess about the time limit when the water hits the flour: all you would have to do is cook it and the leaven questioned would be solved. There is something different between unleaven and leavened bread even when cooked, hence the denotations. And leavened bread doesn't denote sinful bread: the NT NOWHERE makes the rabbinic equation leaven=sin/corruption. I Corinthians 5:8 would be the only one, but since St. Paul equates the leaven of malice and wickedness with OLD leaven and not just plain leaven (and hence new leaven would not be full of malice and wickedness, but something else, as indeed it, or rather He, is), it's not. (Ditto the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which in this case is ironically unleavened bread, as opposed to the leaven of the Kingdom). As was pointed out:

"I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

(btw, artos is used in reference to manna, and the manna stopped on the first day of Unleavened Bread in the Promised Land). And the Jews murmured at this Living Bread from Heaven as they did at the mannah (John 6:41, Exodus 16 ; in Numbers 21:5 their murmurings brought on the need for the Serpent of John 3:14. Btw, I finally learned recently why the use of the serpent, to prefigure Him Who knew no sin becoming sin for us). No "I am the mazzah from Heaven"

No, artos is used only by way of analogy for unleavened bread. The term azyma is quite common in the OT LXX, as is the Feast of Unleavened [Bread] heorte ton azymon,(Bread is in brackets because it is not in the Greek), which became such a techinical term (like episkopos) that it was adopted straight into Latin (like episcopus) and passed (like >bishop) into English:Azymes (used in the Douay-Rheims). Because of the technicalities involved in Passover Mazzot, it is quite rare if not unknown to use the default word for "bread" in such a context. It is as technical as mazzas/mazzot are in English. It would be as odd to refer to them as artos as to talk about bread during Passover: artos/bread is precisely what you are not supposed to be eating.

Indeed azymois is what St. Paul uses here in I Corinthians 5:8, but then there is your second problem:2) The lump: you mentioned the lump already

BTW, are you familiar with the common custom in that day of using a pinch of leavened dough from a previous batch as the leavening agent in a fresh batch of dough? If not I suggest you look into it a bit, as that is a far more likely an natural understanding Paul on the "new lump" concept.

again that 'pinch" is exactly what is banned under the old law, that "small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper" which became, under the New Covenant, the Paschal sacrifice. As St. Paul just said (and will say again (Gal. 5:9), where he IS talking about the Old and New Covenants) "leaven leavens the whole lump." Their should be no lump: any lump should have been gotten rid of. A lump is more than "just that, new." According to the OT law, it is leaven and hence forbidden for the week of Nisan 15. It cannot not stay "new": it must be immediately baked, in which case it never achieves "lump" status-the rules on mazzot making are crafted to precisely deny that forbidden status to the flour. Mazzot do not involve a "lump": the flour and water must be mixed and rolled flat and IMMEDIATELY baked. Otherwise, they are not kosher for Passover. If you do "Nothing" about the lump and it "causes [you] no problem at all" the same cannot be said of the rabbis, Jews and Hebrews. Ask them: "What should [you] do with it?" They would tell you GET RID OF IT! "What problem should it cause [your] argument?" You cannot keep the lump "new and unleavened" with "no problem at all": according to the rabbis now, they give only 18 minutes from the moment the water touches the flour to mix, roll and bake, less if anything else is used (hence why mazzah crumbs have to be used for breading meat, mazzah balls etc. Simple flour won't do: it's considered leavened). A moment more, and the Jew cannot touch it without being cut off from Israel. No "lumping" allowed.

Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.

because you are distracted by St. Paul's use of irony (dealt with below), consider, if St. Paul was actually saying what you claim, why does he call on the Corinthians to be a new lump, which by definition has leaven, old or new. As the lump is by definition leavened, how does "so that you may be a new lump as you are unleavened" work for you?

The lump comes from mixing the leaven (that "pinch") into the three measures of flour and letting set until "the whole" is leavened. (Mat. 13:33; Luke 13:20-1). As that string of parables instruct us, we are supposed to go leavening it. It is for this reason that he exhorts the Corinthians to be unleavened from the old leaven, so that they may be leavened by the new, the reverse of the man who had a demon purged from him, but, because he did not leaven himself with anything, the spirit returned with seven worse than himself to the house swept clean and the man was worse than at first (Mat. 12:45, Luke 11:26). We neither purge the old leaven in the manner of Marcion, nor keep it as did the Ebionites. As putting new wine into new winskins, new leaven for the new lump. As St. John points out "in the case of material leaven, the unleavened might become leavened, but never the reverse," and St. Paul's colleague St. Ignatius explained "Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ."

St. Paul doesn't say we "can can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough." He specifically talks about old leaven, not "that bit of leaven," and does not say a thing about an "old" lump, only about the new lump, which the Church has always identified with Christ, as He identified it with His Kingdom, which we are supposed to give a chance to work and permeate us.

Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.

The translation NIV "Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" NLV "Get rid of the old "yeast" by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us." ISV "Get rid of the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough, since you are to be free from yeast. For the Messiah, our Passover, has been sacrificed." ARE emphatically wrong. The "in fact" of the NASB "Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" is inserted, and not in the text. I don't have to prove St. Paul is uninspired. You need only disprove that St. Paul is making new lumps out of mazzot.

So, again, why is the discussion of the "lump" there, not to mention the reasoning that we "purge out the old leaven, that [we] may be a new lump"?:

should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).

That first Eucharist was that last small bit, the Saved Remnaint.

And that removal of the old leaven happened on the 14th of Nisan, the day the Passover was sacrificed as St. John (and St. Paul) tells us. If Christ was sacrificed on the 15th, as is claimed the Synoptics say, He would not be our Passover sacrificed for us. Which leads to your third problem:3) St. Paul agrees with St. John (and the rest of the Orthodox) that Christ was sacrificed before the Seder, as Christ, as our Passover was sacrificed for us, but to be our Passover, He would have had to have been sacrificed as the Law an type called for:Nisan 14, NOT the 15th, the first day of unleavened bread. The only "need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions" comes with fitting the Gospel account with the typology Moses laid down with the commandments of the celebration of the sacrifice of the Passover (the day beforeNisan 15) and the Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15) and First Fruits and the count down to Pentacost and the reception of the Covenant (Nisan 16).Such is the Messianic application you ask for:

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

Christ, Our Passover, is the Bread of Life, not the Bread of Affliction. The Passover lamb was sacrificed before the first day of the feast of the Unleavened Bread, on 14th Nisan. Scripture and all ancient authorities agree:and, according to the Synoptics, they didn't taste lamb at the supper, so it definitely didn't taste like a seder. There were Quartodecimentarism, but no Quintodecimeniansim [Polycrates of Ephesus c. 190]:

Quote

1...the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: 2. “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. 3. He fell asleep at Ephesus. 4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr;....6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. 7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.htmlSuch is that the Paschal New Moon (i.e. the 14th of Nisan) still determines Pascha.This problem that people make for the Synoptics (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7, cf. Mat. 26:2, 17) does not explain why the Synoptics identify the first day of Unleavened Bread as the day on which they "killed the Passover." The Passover was sacrifed, as the OT shows, on the 14th Nisan "between the two sunsets," the Feast of Unleavenend Bread occured on the 15th. The priests, St. Matthew (26:2, 3-5) and St. Mark specifically tells us (14:1-2), did not arrest, try and kill Christ during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but before. St. Luke tells us (22:1) the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover; Mark 14:1 tells us the Passover and the [Feast] of Unleavened Bread was coming, conflated in English but distinguished in Greek. If the Passover sacrifice was muddled, upon which your interpretation depends, with the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, eating the seder (and hence the passover sacrifice) on the second day of the week of the Unleavened and sacrificing the lamb a day late according to Moses, then the the Gospel is breaking the Pentateuch (not to mention St. John) besides "the text itself [being] clear, this was" NOT "a passover meal...The Bible clearly says it was" NOT "a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion." At least one not according to Moses, who stated in words which cannot be broken and do not pass away, that the Passover was sacrificed on the 14 and the feast of Unleavened on the 15 of Nisan.

"No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further." No Christian ever attached any importance to the 15th of Nisan, so the Synoptics must be read in the light of St. John the Theologian. ALL messianic prophecies hinge on Christ being sacrifice on the 14th of Nisan. Cf. the typology of Joshua (Greek Jesus) entering the Promised Land after passing through the waters of Jordan (where Christ was baptized) (Jos. 4:18-19): this was the 10th of Nisan, when the Passover lambs were chosen, and then sacrificed (5:10) on the 14th, and on the 15th they ate the old wheat of the land unleavened, and rested (before going to take possession of the Land) as it was a double Sabbath-both for the Week and the Passover Festival-just as the Lord rested on the last day of the Old Creation and kept the Sabbath in the tomb, and the next day on the 16th they ate of the first fruits of the promised land (Lev. 23:10), a type of the Resurrection-the Eighth Day of Creation and the First Day of the New Creation-and the manna ceased to fall (5:12). They were home. And they started counting the Omer, which was the countdown to Pentacost, when the Law came down, both Old and New.Btw, the Jews stress that Israel was freed on Passover only so that they could receive the Commandments on Pentacost. Hmmm. Sounds familiar....purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump....They also read Ruth on that day, the account of the founding of the House of David. How's that for Messianic? They also seem to answer your further questioning:

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

A quick FYI ... I was referring to calling in question the specific references I made to Jewish festival customs. Can you prove them to have no ancient validation or Messianic application?

All application of the Hebrew festivals hinges on Christ our Passover being sacrificed for us on the 14th Nisan, and hence all Christian festivals, including the Eucharist:

I actually see the institution of the eucharist happening with the supper. The reference to "after supper" refers again to ceremonial stages of the seder, and helps to indicates which seder cup (the after supper cup, or the 4th in the seder) Christ chose to represent His blood. So, I definitely see it (though designated "after supper") as a continuance of the seder. However, as an aside, I do not believe the full seder meal or celebration is obligatory for believers (though quite illuminating when seen) -- only those elements thereof which Christ ordains as uniquely referring to Him and His sacrificial offering of Himself as our passover.

There was nothing unique (except for what Christ made it) in the Supper: reciting blessings over bread and breaking it for distribution, and then a blessing over the cup were the common ceremonial of Hebrew meals. Hence no "internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... " nor do "these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder." To claim "Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder" is "[y]our misleading": such was format of any Hebrew meal, who saw the sanctification of daily life as an integral part of the Faith (as it still is).("The Eucharist in the New Testament," Jerome Kodell, Chapter 3 "Jewish Meals in the First Century")http://books.google.com/books?id=_ltfLemA6F4C&pg=PA38&dq=Eucharist+in+the+New+Testament+Jewish+Meals+in+the+first+century&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Eucharist%20in%20the%20New%20Testament%20Jewish%20Meals%20in%20the%20first%20century&f=falseHence there is no problem of validation of ancient Jewish customs, except the problem for seeing the Afikoman as the Eucharist is that the Afikoman was the Passover lamb in Christ's day. Hence the absence of lamb on the Synoptics menu is not a little detail, what it meant to "eat the Passover" if we are going to insist on reading things with a veil on (II Cor. 3:15). And if the lamb was present, then the Eucharist is not the passover lamb, and could not be eaten (if the rabbis are to be believed) as the lamb was the last to be eaten, right before midnight. Then there's that problem that the New Testament never interprets the Eucharist in the light of Passover.Your assertions (true enough)

I understand what you are saying, however, since Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35) any view thereof that causes the gospels (or any other book of Scripture) to disagree, rather than to harmonize, must be a false view or understanding. Besides, Paul is quite clear on the nature of the bread we are to use at the Lords table, and why (1 Corinthians 5:8).

should include, for instance, John 12:1 and 19:14 (and Ex. 12:6, Lev. 23:6, Num. 9:11 and 28:17). And harmonize Mat. 26:2, 17, Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 accordingly. And use leaven bread, as St. Paul did. Because St. Paul was quite found of irony, as he is using here, setting metaphors on their heads, which has confused some. Which brings us to another problem:4) Changing the metaphor into a Judaising rubric requires ignoring St. Paul's use of metaphor. St. Paul uses the exact proverb of I Cor. 5:6 in Gal. 5:9, where he is dealing with feasting under the Old and New Covenants (btw, Gal. 4:9-11 precludes "Christian Seders" and other Judaisizing elements that many Protestants, rejecting the Church calendar, have adopted the Hebrew OT calendar as interpreted by the Jews), and launches into a discussion (4:21-31) which, interpreted as I Cor. 5 is being interpreted, would teach us new and strange things such as the Law came down on Sinai for the Ishmaelites (4:24), Sinai is in Jerusalem (25), and the Jews are the sons of Hagar (25, 29). Now, since St. Paul had been to Jerusalem and Arabia (where Sinai is), I don't think he failed geography class at Gamaliel's academy. Nor was he confused about the Jews' genealogy, any more than he got the rubrics on the Eucharist wrong or was confused on using leavened bread. Nor did he fail physiology: St. Paul is not mistaken is his frequent image of the Jews being uncircumcized and the Gentile Christians circumsized in Colossians, Ephesians, Romans, Galatians and indeed here in I Corinthians: he does not think (nor do we) that the Jews' foreskins grew back, nor those of the Gentiles fell off. As you state, St. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading:

I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.

I understand your hesitancy, but it just makes sense if you meditate on the passage a bit. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading. Furthermore, he frames his obvious metaphorical application (concerning Christian living on the whole) with the observance of the passover fulfilled, what you good folk call the eucharist. So, what he says about the Lord's table here must be literally true for the application to make sense, else there is no basis for the comparison or extension he is making. I mean,really, if we eat leavened bread then Paul's words here are difficult to understand at best, and are totally incoherent and non-applicable at worst. The clear meaning and intention is that the unleavened bread we eat speaks to the purity of life Christ lived in the flesh, and our partaking in that same purity of heart and life, both positionally and experientially.

You are somewhat on St. Paul's point here: he is using the rabbinic equation (still used by the Jews) leaven=corruption, evil, pride. He refers to this metaphor which, as Hebrews, would have been familiar to the Church at Corinth. However, the interjection of the new lump, distinction old/new leaven and Christ our Passover was sacrificed prevents (or should prevent you) from taking that too far: St. Paul in the same epistle refers to idol worship (10:20-22) without admitting it has any basis in reality (10:19, 8:1, 4); nor can his reference to baptism for the dead (15:29) be used (sorry Joseph Smith) as justification for the practice. We haven't had any difficulty in nearly 2,000 years we have been around in understanding St. Paul's words here: neither St. John nor St. Ignatius (who knew St. Paul personally) found his words incoherent or non-applicable, but then they partook of the new leaven, Christ our Passover sacrificed for us, as we do today.

To state the sasme more briefly and rhetorically...If Christ our passover is identified in Scripture with unleavened bread, and the bread is his body, what then does it say about Christ to use leavened bread in praxis? Such is a contradiction.

Christ Our Passover is NOT identified in this Scripture (or elsewhere) with unleavened bread: the passover refers to the lamb sacrificed. As I posted:

"Eating the Passover (sacrificial lamb)" is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX) for celebrating Passover, but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover. Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics. Which is a problem, because artos is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare artos is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.

As Pravoslavbob pointed out, St. Paul is speaking in metaphors, actually turning them on their head. To not see that, does violence to the text.

Per Paul, He is both.1 Corinthians 5:7-8Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

because He has the leaven of divinity which He shares with us as the Bread that has come down from Heaven. And comes down: hence the iconostais where the Royal Doors (the middle doors, which open up to the altar) are flanked by the icon of Christ and the Theotokos-how He came down-on the one side and on the other-the Pantocrator "Christ Almighty"-how He will come down on the other. In the middle is the altar, on which He comes down in the Eucharist, now: an image that dates from the days of Justin Martyr (from 2nd century Palestine). Christ Himself identifies His Kingdom with leaven. He nowhere uses the rabbinic metaphor of leaven=sin. Nor, for that matter, does the rest of the NT. And the Church, the New Lump leavened by Christ has always had as her praxis the use of the new leaven in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the true Passover sacrifice sacrificed for us. No, St. Paul does NOT identify Christ and the Eucharist with unleavened bread. Otherwise he would have used azyma instead of artos in Chapter 10, and we would be speaking of the "breaking of the mazzo" instead of the "breaking of the bread." St. Paul, his friend St. Ignatius, their follower St. John and the rest of us have held to the symbolism that Christ Himself teaches on leaven in the Gospels. As for Judaising symbolism

Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I not sure what distinction you are making. Our leaven bread is pierced and broken (see the Proskomedia service mentioned earlier). As for the stripes, it looks pox marked to me (I've replaced the photo of the machine made Mazza in your OP with one of a hand made mazzah: they didn't have machines in 1st century Palestine).

Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).

That's your problem, not ours (St. John, St. Ignatius, and St. Paul):azyma in never used instead of artos, and the two are not interchangeable, and the latter is the ONLY term used for the eucharist, whereas the former is the term used for the week of Unleavened [Bread]. To preserve your interpretation of St. Paul as arguing for seder for the Mystical Supper, you are going to either:have to make Moses a liar, for setting up a faulty typology (Nisan 15 won't work for a Passover sacrifice, nor for the fast of the firstborn, nor a first fruits on the Resurrection, etc.)have to make the Synoptics liars, as your interpretation of them precludes Christ being our Passover sacrificed for us.have to make St. John a liar, as he makes it quite clear the Seder had not yet been celebrated nor the Passover yet slain.have to make St. Paul a liar for talking about bread when he talks about the Eucharist (which is not his topic in chapter 5, but is chapter 10), a Mormon for baptizing the dead, a proto-Muslim for making Ishmael the receiver of the covenant at Sinai....As you say, scripture cannot be broken. And the scripture does NOT here, nor anywhere, refer to Christ as unleavened bread. You have, just as the Jews have now, replaced the Passover with the Afikoman matza, and put that in St. Paul's mouth.It doesn't look like a seder because no lamb is to be seen, doesn't taste like a seder because no lamb (except the Lamb of God) is eaten, & doesn't feel like a seder because the Eucharist comes at the end instead of the passover lamb sacrificed (the Pachal Lamb of God fulfilling it instead the coming day) which is the last think the rabbis say should be eaten, it's probably because it was NOT a seder. And if it wasn't a seder, so goes the need to have the Eucharist unleavened.

He may be living bread, but He is also unleavened bread, per the Apostle Paul. That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw. As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if).

If we are to hold that, then we must hold that he believed Hagar was his Hebrew ancestress, the Ishmaelites were at Sinai, Sinai is in Jerusalem, and St. Paul baptized the dead and believed idols were real. We also must hold that St. Paul when he calls the Jews uncircumcized means that their foreskins grew back, and for the Gentiles called circumcized their foreskins dissolved in the baptismal font. Talk about nonsense. Or we can hold, as St. Ignatius, St. John and all the rest of the Orthdoox for the past two millenia that St. Paul is refering to a metaphor familiar to his audience and himself from their former life with the old leaven, to make a point on life partaking of the new leaven.

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference. However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad. It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread referred to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

St. Ignatius, St. John and all the rest of the Greek fathers didn't need a translation, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit stuck with St. Paul and the leavened artos he speaks about when the topic does turn to the Eucharist. Neither St. John nor we need to change the original nor the translation (as you suggest:

Ialmisry,Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

as two millenia of Church praxis and teaching shows such mistranslation is not necessary for his meaning. Now, 2,000 years of consitent witnessing to the Truth of Christ may seem an awful lot of effort and trouble

Ialmisry,That's an awful lot of effort and trouble to go through to try and make "keep the feast with the unleavened bread" actually mean "keep the feast with the newly leavened bread". Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.

but we think it worth it for the successors of the Apostles to uphold their teachings, so that the Orthodox Church remains the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One.

As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)

You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I.

Ha ha! I anticipated the likelihood of such a response, though in truth, no. Not according to Cleopas, but according to Paul, by his own hand (or dictation as it were), under inspiration of God, and preserved in Holy writ. Alas, it seems we have reached the dreaded impasse. Nevertheless, here I stand, so help me God.

No impasse at all: simply show us those before you who believed as you do, and on what basis they stand. Because neither St. Paul (who brings leavening the lump with new leaven into discussion), the Synoptics (who according to your interpretation disqualify Christ as the Passover), St. John (who disqualifies the Eucharist as a Seder) or Moses (who set up the typology you reject) is backing you up.

As a visible symbol of Catholic unity, it had been the custom to maintain Greek churches and monasteries in Rome and some of Latin Rite in Constantinople. In 1053, Michael Caerularius ordered all the Latin churches in the Byzantine capital to be closed, and the Latin monks to be expelled. As a dogmatic justification of this violent rupture with the past, he advanced the novel tenet that the unleavened oblation of the "Franks" was not a valid Mass; and one of his chaplains, Constantine by name, with a fanaticism worthy of a Calvinist, trod the consecrated Host under his feet. The proclamation of war with the pope and the West was drawn up by his chief lieutenant, Leo of Aehrida, Metropolitan of the Bulgarians. It was in the form of a letter addressed to John, Bishop of Trani, in Apulia, at the time subject to the Byzantine emperor, and by decree of Leo the Isaurian attached to the Eastern Patriarchate. John was commanded to have the letter translated into Latin and communicated to the pope and the Western bishops. This was done by the learned Benedictine, Cardinal Humbert, who happened to be present in Trani when the letter arrived. Baronius has preserved the Latin version; Cardinal Hergenrother was so fortunate as to discover the original Greek text (Cornelius Will, Acta et Scripta, 51 sqq.). It is a curious sample of Greek logic. "The love of God and a feeling of friendliness impelled the writers to admonish the Bishops, clergy, monks and laymen of the Franks, and the Most Reverend Pope himself, concerning their azyms and Sabbaths, which were unbecoming, as being Jewish observances and instituted by Moses. But our Pasch is Christ. The Lord, indeed, obeyed the law by first celebrating the legal pasch; but, as we learn from the Gospel, he subsequently instituted the new pasch.... He took bread, etc., that is, a thing full of life and spirit and heat. You call bread panis; we call it artos. This from airoel (airo) to raise, signifies a something elevated, lifted up, being raised and warmed by the ferment and salt; the azym, on the other hand, is as lifeless as a stone or baked clay, fit only to symbolize affliction and suffering. But our Pasch is replete with joy; it elevates us from the earth to heaven even as the leaven raises and warms the bread", etc. This etymological manipulation of artos from airo was about as valuable in deciding a theological controversy as Melanchthon's discovery that the Greek for "penance" is metanoia. The Latin divines found an abundance of passages in Scripture where unleavened bread is designated as artos. Cardinal Humbert remembered immediately the places where the unleavened loaves of proposition are called artoi. If the writers of the letter had been familiar with the Septuagint, they would have recalled the artous azymous of Ex., xxix, 2.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” 13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." 22:7-15

" In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that [a]person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land. 20 You shall not eat anything leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread." Exodus 12:18-20

you sure you're not Hindu? Or does the CCC have a section on mantras that I missed?

The feast itself is mentioned in Mk. 14:1, 12 (cf. Mt. 26:17; Lk. 22:1,7) and twice in Acts (12:3; 20:6). The azyma are the seven days following the evening of the Passover, though the Passover itself is sometimes called the first day of an eight-day feast (Mk. 14:12). It is not clear why the accounts of the last supper do not mention the eating of unleavened bread which was part of the Passover ritual (cf. Ex. 12:18). Is artos used instead?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Regarding Exodus 25:30 ... Again, in ancient Koine Greek artos doesn't mean "leavened bread", it just means "bread". In the Old Testament the "showbread" of the Temple is referred to as "artos", despite being unleavened.

You've claimed that ἄρτος is a generic word for bread, and not specifically "leavened" bread. Yet, in all instances you brought up except Ex. 25.30, it was modified with ἄζυμος so that we were clear on the fact that "unleavened" bread was being spoken of. What is the word for "leavened" bread, if not ἄρτος? Surely there is such a word for when we want to be certain that we are speaking of "leavened" bread?

Quote

I'll provide evidence for the showbread being unleavened if you still doubt... Just say so

But your next post provided no evidence other than what I already conceded in previous posts: no one can guarantee that the Bread of the Presence was definitely unleavened, they can only propose that it was most likely unleavened. In fact, both Wiki and the Jewish Encyclopedia claim that the actual preparation of the bread was a "trade secret" of the priesthood, so they can only make educated guesses and not assert certainties.

Regarding Exodus 25:30 ... Again, in ancient Koine Greek artos doesn't mean "leavened bread", it just means "bread". In the Old Testament the "showbread" of the Temple is referred to as "artos", despite being unleavened.

You've claimed that ἄρτος is a generic word for bread, and not specifically "leavened" bread. Yet, in all instances you brought up except Ex. 25.30, it was modified with ἄζυμος so that we were clear on the fact that "unleavened" bread was being spoken of. What is the word for "leavened" bread, if not ἄρτος? Surely there is such a word for when we want to be certain that we are speaking of "leavened" bread?

Quote

I'll provide evidence for the showbread being unleavened if you still doubt... Just say so

But your next post provided no evidence other than what I already conceded in previous posts: no one can guarantee that the Bread of the Presence was definitely unleavened, they can only propose that it was most likely unleavened. In fact, both Wiki and the Jewish Encyclopedia claim that the actual preparation of the bread was a "trade secret" of the priesthood, so they can only make educated guesses and not assert certainties.

I'm sorry, this intellectual dishonesty.

My next post conclusively proved it was unleavened. The jewish historian Flavius Josephus actually lived during the second temple period and in his accounts of the time, with regards to the show bread , he explicitly says it was unleavened.

Secondly the Talmudic Jewish source and the Jewish encyclopedia too explicitly say it was unleavened.

Thirdly it is guaranteed that the showbread was unleavened because the bread in the inner sanctuary was banned, by God in the bible, to be leavened in any form , as the Jewish encyclopedia and various other Jewish sources make note of this.

Further the bread was meant last for a week and be eaten on the following Sabbath. It would be wiser to use unleavened bread which took longer to rot and stayed fresh longer than leavened bread.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 03:54:09 AM by Wandile »

Logged

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Why so aggressive? Calm down and read my posts again. It's not dishonest to suggest that there's more to an issue than what Wandile has to say about it.

Quote

My next post conclusively proved it was unleavened. The jewish historian Flavius Josephus actually lived during the second temple period and in his accounts of the time, with regards to the show bread , he explicitly says it was unleavened.

OK. Not that Josephus is infallible, but based on what you quoted, OK.

Quote

Secondly the Talmudic Jewish source and the Jewish encyclopedia too explicitly say it was unleavened.

You quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia thusly:

Quote

"Mention is made of the showbread in the story of David's adventure at Nob. Ahimelek, the priest, at David's request, gave him the "holy" bread, that is, the stale loaves that had been taken away and replaced by "hot" ones (I Sam. xxi. 4-6; comp. Matt. xii. 4; Luke vi. 4). In Solomon's Temple provision was made for the proper exhibition of the loaves (I Kings vii. 48; comp. II Chron. iv. 19, xiii. 11). not explicitly stated to be so, these cakes were most probably unleavened. It is true they were not offered upon the altar, from which leaven was scrupulously excluded (Lev. ii. 11); but, as most holy, they were carried into and exposed in the inner sanctuary, and therefore the supposition that the use of leaven in them was prohibited carries a high degree of probability" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13611-showbread

I have bolded and underlined places where it seems clear to me that what is offered is a high likelihood, but not an explicit certainty (as you would have me believe), that the showbread was unleavened. All I'm saying is that "probably unleavened" is not the same as "definitely unleavened, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise".

But right before the part you quoted, we read:

Quote

According to I Chron. ix. 32, the sons of the Kohathites had charge of the baking and setting in order of the "bread of the row," as the Hebrew describes it. It would thus seem that the preparing of these cakes involved certain information which was kept as a secret by this priestly set.

If the preparation of the loaves was a closely guarded priestly secret, this seems to underscore that the "high probability" of the bread being unleavened is just that: a probability and not an infallible certainty. Unless Josephus was a priest, I'm not sure how certain he could be...and if his certainty was undeniable, why the debate within the sources?

Quote

Thirdly it is guaranteed that the showbread was unleavened because the bread in the inner sanctuary was banned, by God in the bible, to be leavened in any form , as the Jewish encyclopedia and various other Jewish sources make note of this.

The prohibition was of leaven, not of leavened bread. That said, those sources argue that leavened bread was probably not used out of respect for that prohibition, even though the showbread was not actually offered within the sanctuary, but only carried in and exposed. Read your own citations closely.

Quote

Further the bread was meant last for a week and be eaten on the following Sabbath. It would be wiser to use unleavened bread which took longer to rot and stayed fresh longer than leavened bread.

It might be wiser, but these things don't necessarily operate on the principle of what is practical.

If you think I'm some anti-RC Orthodox who wants to trash the tradition of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, you are sorely mistaken. Were I to do that, I'd have to condemn my own Orthodox brethren. But there is a tradition in the Fathers of interpreting the ἄρτος/ἄζυμος distinction as leavened/unleavened, and I can't imagine that these words have as much of a semantic range as, for example, Christological or Trinitarian terms. I don't see a reason to reject their distinction by appealing to "ἄρτος is generic bread" argumentation as if that settles the matter definitively.

As an example:

Quote

Why do we offer leavened bread, and not unleavened bread (pathiro), like the ignorant and foolish Armenians do*? We call it bread (lahmo), [because] it is made from leaven, [that is] life. [But] pathiro is from dead things, that is from the flour and water alone. Whenever the Scriptures speak of bread (lahmo), it means leavened (hmiro) bread, not unleavened bread (pathiro). Instead of bread (lahmo), Moses used (pathiro) in his offerings, because he administered it prefiguratively. Christ did not say "I am the (pathiro) which descended from heaven", but rather "lahmo of life". Paul called the body lahmo, not pathiro (cf. I Cor. 10.16-17, 11:23). "The Kingdom of heaven is like leaven (hmiro) which a woman took and hid in three seahs (Mt. 13.33, Lk. 13.21). [This] hmiro is the Word [of God] who kneaded himself in the three families of Noah and enleavened them with true faith. Moses also offered leavened bread (lahmo hmiro) at the feast of Pentecost: "Two cakes of barley shall be baked with leaven" (cf. Lev. 23.17).

St Dionysius Bar Salibi, Commentary on the Eucharist, 6.8

*Though St Dionysius was in full communion with the "ignorant and foolish Armenians", he is known to be harshly polemical towards them when their customs differ from the rest of the Orthodox (or really any time he got a chance). Historians feel this has less to do with matters of faith than with his capture and imprisonment in 1156 at the hands of the Armenians, who pillaged a town under his episcopal jurisdiction.

Regarding Exodus 25:30 ... Again, in ancient Koine Greek artos doesn't mean "leavened bread", it just means "bread". In the Old Testament the "showbread" of the Temple is referred to as "artos", despite being unleavened.

You've claimed that ἄρτος is a generic word for bread, and not specifically "leavened" bread. Yet, in all instances you brought up except Ex. 25.30, it was modified with ἄζυμος so that we were clear on the fact that "unleavened" bread was being spoken of. What is the word for "leavened" bread, if not ἄρτος? Surely there is such a word for when we want to be certain that we are speaking of "leavened" bread?